North America Before Global Warming

[westwall]

What you don't seem to understand is the time course. How can you compare something that happened over tens of thousands of years to something that's happening in hundreds?

How long did the Roman Warming Period last? How long did the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (when it got real cold) last? How long did the Medieval Warming Period last? How long did the Little Ice Age last?

I will answer for you....a few hundred years each. You'll notice hot, cold, hot, cold, hot....
You should be able to understand the pattern, my four year old girl does so I would hope you can figure it out as well.


Care to show me anytime in that sequence where man was driving SUV's around?

Brutus gave this to Julius Caesar right before the Ides of March. Low mileage! Just driven to the Pantheon and back once!

Ahhh yes, "The Senate and Public of Rome" I'm afraid my Latin has gone out the window though! Senatus publicus que Rome is close but probably not close enough!

 

[konradv]

proof?

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

I guess they're making things uo, too? It's the people that say volcanoes are the main source of CO2 that are making things up!!!

uh, you claimed GHG's, not just CO2

So what? That's the problem. You don't have an answer to my arguments, so you make quibbling comments. CO2 is the main GHG. Did you expect me to include the whole list? Now you're just being silly.

 

[konradv]

Yeah none of that warming was caused by man either, crazy! But Global Warming Alarmists will have some sort of excuse to support their claims because they think it matters one way or the other.

The point you're missing is that that happened in response to a natural cycle. Current AGW theory is that we're in an unnatural cycle brought on by man-made emissions. One occurred over tens of thousands of years, while the concern over AGW is that it's happening in hundreds. Get the difference?

And the theory has failed every test. The theory is based on computer models that can't recreate their own predictions. The models need to be updated every hour or they begin to diverge from actual observations at warp speed. Models that can't recreate what we know happened a day ago.

This is what you place your faith in.

Since this is 'Petty Quibbling Day', could you define "warp speed", as it relates to climate models? You complain about the language of "alarmists". I'd expect the same from you.

 

[konradv]

I think you don't understand that the world is an open system...not a walled off room that can be controlled. The Earth is NEVER just right. Anyone who believes that exhibits a complete lack of understanding of the natural world.

What you don't seem to understand is the time course. How can you compare something that happened over tens of thousands of years to something that's happening in hundreds?

How long did the Roman Warming Period last? How long did the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (when it got real cold) last? How long did the Medieval Warming Period last? How long did the Little Ice Age last?

I will answer for you....a few hundred years each. You'll notice hot, cold, hot, cold, hot....
You should be able to understand the pattern, my four year old girl does so I would hope you can figure it out as well.


Care to show me anytime in that sequence where man was driving SUV's around?

You just don't stop, do you? Your question is about a time when the climate changed for a different reason. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. CO2 has risen by about a third, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. WHY??? Given its properties, why shouldn't we expect warming? It's your abject failure in answering those questions that forces you to keep bringing up irrelevanices like the RWP. Nice dodge, but it doesn't impress me.

 

[IanC]

What you don't seem to understand is the time course. How can you compare something that happened over tens of thousands of years to something that's happening in hundreds?

What time period are you talking about? Be specific. Are you talking about the last 5 years, 50 years, 500 years, 5000 years or something else. And could you also describe how much cooling or heating that you are talking about.

I've always talked about the same time period, which you would know if you'd paid attention, instead trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. For those new to the topic, I refer to the time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. I also very seldom talk about heating and cooling, but rather, GHG concentrations. We know what they do. We know they've been going up since the IR, 25-35% depending on who you read. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you ecpect anything but warming? Can you answer that?

konradv- global temperatures go up and down regularly. it is a natural occurence. if mankind had invented thermometers in the medieval warm period instead of the little ice age we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[westwall]

What you don't seem to understand is the time course. How can you compare something that happened over tens of thousands of years to something that's happening in hundreds?

How long did the Roman Warming Period last? How long did the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (when it got real cold) last? How long did the Medieval Warming Period last? How long did the Little Ice Age last?

I will answer for you....a few hundred years each. You'll notice hot, cold, hot, cold, hot....
You should be able to understand the pattern, my four year old girl does so I would hope you can figure it out as well.


Care to show me anytime in that sequence where man was driving SUV's around?

You just don't stop, do you? Your question is about a time when the climate changed for a different reason. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. CO2 has risen by about a third, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. WHY??? Given its properties, why shouldn't we expect warming? It's your abject failure in answering those questions that forces you to keep bringing up irrelevanices like the RWP. Nice dodge, but it doesn't impress me.

Read my signature. Aristotle said "he who asserts must also prove". I have shown how everything we are seeing today has happened in the not too distant past (200 years ago in fact), and it was all natural. You come along and make this strident claim that we are now the sole cause for the perceived rise in temperatures. Yet the only evidence you have are failed computer models.

I don't have to prove anything. You have made the claim....so you have to prove it. Using models that don't work are not serving your cause at all. When I say warp speed I am stating that the models get so far away from the observed weather so fast that they must be shut down as they begin to show a planet hotter than the sun in some cases. I do find it interesting that they never show anything but a warming bias even though we have seen extensive record setting cooling in many places of the planet.

Methinks that perhaps the "modelers" have programed in a bias, no?

 

[IanC]

Because of the (bad) publicity that climate science has recieved lately more and more outsiders have been examining the methodologies involved. The next upcoming black eye for the computer climate models is that they failed to incorporate pressure change with water condensation into rain. basic physics.

 

[westwall]

Because of the (bad) publicity that climate science has recieved lately more and more outsiders have been examining the methodologies involved. The next upcoming black eye for the computer climate models is that they failed to incorporate pressure change with water condensation into rain. basic physics.

GISS themselves are perpetrating incredibly bad science. They say that the Arctic has a 1.5 to 2 degree rise in temperature even though they have no on the ground temperature reading capability within 800 kilometers. They quite simply are making it up.

 

[IanC]

Because of the (bad) publicity that climate science has recieved lately more and more outsiders have been examining the methodologies involved. The next upcoming black eye for the computer climate models is that they failed to incorporate pressure change with water condensation into rain. basic physics.

GISS themselves are perpetrating incredibly bad science. They say that the Arctic has a 1.5 to 2 degree rise in temperature even though they have no on the ground temperature reading capability within 800 kilometers. They quite simply are making it up.

One of the things that casual readers don't understand is that the temperature records are continually adjusted. Not just recent data but numbers from more than a hundred years ago. CRU was caught with its pants down after climategate when it was discovered that they had lost (or purposely deleted) the original raw temperature data. That is more than just a little mistake.

 

[westwall]

Because of the (bad) publicity that climate science has recieved lately more and more outsiders have been examining the methodologies involved. The next upcoming black eye for the computer climate models is that they failed to incorporate pressure change with water condensation into rain. basic physics.

GISS themselves are perpetrating incredibly bad science. They say that the Arctic has a 1.5 to 2 degree rise in temperature even though they have no on the ground temperature reading capability within 800 kilometers. They quite simply are making it up.

One of the things that casual readers don't understand is that the temperature records are continually adjusted. Not just recent data but numbers from more than a hundred years ago. CRU was caught with its pants down after climategate when it was discovered that they had lost (or purposely deleted) the original raw temperature data. That is more than just a little mistake.

I agree. Those are the actions that elevate what they are doing to fraud.